Fighting the Taliban

Iraq is receiving, and has been receiving, much more attention than Afghanistan, but I think that that may be about to change. There is currently talk of a massive build-up of Taliban forces, with as many as 2000 suicide bombers among them. This is enough to wreak probably almost as much havoc in Afghanistan as has been wreaked against us in Iraq, at least in the short term. And it comes at a predictable moment: the international force is winding down, the American people have turned against any further military build-up; basically, the sleeping dragon awakened on Sept. 11, 2001 is yawning and getting ready to go back to sleep.

Well, I want to go back to two more fundamental questions that have received particularly short shrift regarding Afghanistan: (1) what was our purpose in invading their country, and (2) who is our enemy there.

The invasion, even though rather weak in terms of the number of American soldiers on the ground, was well supported around the world, primarily because it was seen as a form of "hot pursuit". That is, a band of murderous thugs had made a particularly brutal and effective attack against us, and we were chasing them down. That it meant that we needed to cross the boundary of another nation was widely accepted at the time as OK.

However, even then I was concerned with how little respect we showed for the sovereignty of the Afghan government.

Mullah Omar, the leader of the country, had made a deal with Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda that they could operate freely in the mountainous outlands of the country if, in exchange, they accepted Afghans loyal to the ruling party as trainees. This deal was a win-win for them, because in fact, Mullah Omar and Osama bin-Laden shared a view of the world that required them, as a matter of their religious faith, to be militant against those whom they perceived to be enemies of their religion. Omar apparently had no interest in anything beyond the borders of his own country, while bin-Laden apparently did not involve himself in the domestic affairs of his host; their arrangement was made for practical reasons and because of their agreement on many theological and ideological matters.

During the very rapid build-up to our invasion of Afghanistan, we demanded that Mullah Omar either hand over bin-Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda to us, or to get out of the way and to allow us to get them. He actually agreed to do it, but only if we gave him hard evidence that it was bin-Laden and al-Qaeda who had attacked us. At that time, we had no such evidence, and in fact, it was quite some time before we got it. We had a compelling circumstantial case, but in the Sharia law which Mullah Omar attempted to follow in ruling Afghanistan, circumstantial evidence carries little weight. We could have waited to gather hard evidence, and used it to convince Omar to comply, but we didn't. I believe that the reason that we rejected a diplomatic/law enforcement approach was primarily political. People all around the world were clamoring for action. If the Bush administration had put every possible resource into developing a bullet-proof case against al-Qaeda as the perpetuators of the WTC/Pentagon attack, and used the pressure of the entire world to persuade Omar either to let us in or to declare bin-Laden and the al-Qaeda leaders personae non gratae and forcing them out, while also declaring our intention not otherwise to interfere with the internal affairs of Afghanistan, I believe that we could have done a much more effective job against al-Qaeda then we did.

However, we decided to lump al-Qaeda together with the Taliban as our enemies, and to invade the country, to overthrow its government, and to set up a puppet government which we are still propping up today. Instead of pursuing those who attacked us, we had to fight all of the government forces of the entire country, making them our deadly enemies for life. Our attackers, for the most part, survived, and, conveniently for them, are still attacking us, but without the necessity of a long commute around the world to do so. In fact, we are commuting around the world, at great expense, to become their targets.

I don't believe that we should ever have considered the Taliban our enemy. Yes, as a democratic republic, we do not agree with the theocratic or Islamic approach to government, nor they with our approach. We disagree, even strongly. They believe that our licentiousness endangers the souls of our citizens and prevents them from finding and submitting to Allah. We believe that their restrictive, superstition-filled way of life represses their citizens and prevents them from pursuing happiness or justice. But those are not differences that rise to the level of a casus belli.

So now that we have made the Taliban our enemies, what should our approach be to dealing with them? It appears very clear that they will always be a formidable force in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't think it would be in our interests to wipe them out to the last person, and I don't think that's even possible. But, if we just push them back, killing some of them (i.e., some brothers, fathers, sons, wives, children, sisters), then they will become even more adamantly our enemies.

The bottom line is that our only choice, unless we are committed to empire, is to withdraw from Afghanistan just as we must withdraw from Iraq. Withdraw while making the sincerest possible apology, and accepting a commitment to assist those states that we have ravaged with our war machine, with economic aid, training, and, if necessary, material aid.

If our withdrawal means the return of the Taliban, which it might, then I maintain that that would be better than the status quo. The Taliban will never stay in power indefinitely. The entire weight of history is against them. But it is never right or even helpful for an alien nation to go in and force a regime change on a people who has not attacked them, that just slows down the process by creating enmity and violence.

Koran-squatting

Much is being made today of reports that interrogators in Guantánamo squatted over Korans in order to infuriate Muslim prisoners. As I read that, I wonder if the prisoners would have been equally upset if someone squatted over any other book, or any other stack of papers. And, I'm wondering if the guards would have been upset if the prisoner turned around and squatted over a Bible.

In fact, I couldn't keep the rather bizarre image of a multi-confessional squatting session as a substitute for blowing people up.

The Muslims would squat over Torahs, Bibles, Vedas, and the texts of any group they wanted to terrorize. Christians, Jews, and Hindus would retaliate by squatting over Korans. All over the world, young men would sidle into cafés, and, before anyone could stop them, they would throw a sacred text to the floor and squat over it. In the relatively more secular USA, American flag squatting would undoubtedly be even more effective than Bible squatting.

As the level of terror raised, there would be escalations: women and young people would be recruited to go on these squatting missions. Imagine the horror of sitting in a dimly-lit café with your love, sipping espresso whilst staring into one another's eyes, when suddenly, without warning, a young child of nine or ten would throw the Stars and Stripes on the floor and squat over it!

The next level of escalation would involved dropping trousers or lifting skirts. This would surely bring the police into play, not to mention the sanitation services of the country. And of course, the level of horror would be incredible, because truly, who can imagine anything that could match the devastating impact of witnessing someone squat over your sacred object? Especially someone whose lowered trousers revealed a patched and stained undergarment!

The only possible response would be to fight fire with fire: vendors of sacred objects the world around would experience a surge of sales. Soon, everyone would be carrying around a copy of their enemy's most holy thing. That way, if someone squatted over the Koran in the presence of a Muslim, the response would be quick and certain: the Muslim could whip out a Torah and squat over it! The lex talionis would be the rule of the day.

Soon, however, even the widespread horror of sacred-object squatting wouldn't be enough to satisfy the lust of would-be squatters around the world: the next inevitable step would be desecration. Yes, although it may seem impossible to imagine that any human being could so depraved, soon Koran-squatting would involve Koran-spitting and Koran-peeing, and outraged Muslims would counterattack by publicly adorning flags, Bibles, Torahs, and Vedas with their own bodily fluids. It would be a spit-bath of global proportions.

Clearly, strict laws and punishments must be imposed to prevent this. More honorable methods such as aerial invasion, car bombs, and martyr operations can be used without disrespect for each other's sacred objects, which, after all, is the only human thing to do.

The interrogators guantanameros who started down the slippery slope should be publicly embarrassed for the use of such methods: they should be forced to witness prisoners squatting over the interrogators' own sacred things. Hopefully, the sight of this extreme punishment will discourage other would-be agressive squatters enough to nip this chain of horror in the bud.

More on Saddam's death

This is a brief additional note to the longer post I made yesterday regarding Saddam's execution. It is in response to the description of the details of how he died.

As is being reported, he apparently showed no fear. He responded curtly to those who were taunting him in the room, describing their behavior as "unmanly". He refused a mask. As he was waiting for the trapdoor to drop, he recited the Shahada, and his last word was "Muhammed". Most reports I have read have been by Shiites or Kurds, his enemies, and I believe that it is possible to read between the lines that even they consider him to have died in a manly, faithful, and correct manner.

So what is going on here? During his time in power, Saddam's Iraq was characterized by secularism. One of the reasons why he and ObL hated each other was because Osama is a religious fanatic and Saddam was a secular leader who patterned his government after Stalin's. Did Saddam really become more religious?

I actually don't think he did. He has been playing the religious card since the 1st Gulf War, building huge mosques, associating himself publically with the Koran and with the rites and practices of Islam. I've never really taken that seriously, nor do I think many Iraqis or Muslims elsewhere took it seriously. Remember, alQaeda and Saddam's government of Iraq remained enemies until well after the 2003 invasion. It was widely seen as a shrewd but not too effective political move on Saddam's part.

But now we have a man who died affirming himself as a Muslim, unrepentant, with the name of the Prophet on his lips. This death-"bed" affirmation will be harder to doubt than his religiosity while still in power. But I do doubt it.

Saddam had plenty of time to prepare for his death. Undoubtedly, based on his culture and his personality, the thought foremost in his mind, once he had accepted the fact that he would be executed, was revenge. What could he do to avenge his own death, the death of his sons, and the occupation of his country?

His options were very limited, to say the least. But one thing that he could do is to maximize the likelihood that other people would attack his killers and his country's occupiers. And clearly, the best way to do that would be to play once again the religious card, and that is what he did.

He knew that the execution would be videotaped, and this played right into his hands. Note the refusal of the mask: if he had been masked, the video would have been much less compelling. Unmasked, there was no doubt that is was, in fact, Saddam Hussein who was dying bravely, epitomizing the qualities of a martyr. He will be the inspiration of millions of his Sunni coreligionists around the world.

And what will he inspire them to do?

Well, it's important to remember that those who killed him were in large part Shiites, and there has been warfare between Sunnis and Shiites for many centuries. Furthermore, his executioners where backed by the United States, a country that is deeply hated by many Muslims in every corner of the world. As he died, he exhorted those who could see and hear him to kill the Americans, to kill the Persians (i.e., Shiites), and so on. And to cap it all off, his executioners did the deed on a day considered by most Muslims around the world (i.e., Sunnis) to be one of the holiest days of the haj, and there were several harsh criticisms of the timing by religious leaders in Mecca. This, coupled with Saddam's theatrics, created a very powerful image.

I have no doubt that his dying wishes will be carried out, and that his plan to die in a manner that would cause his death to be avenged will succeed.

Of course, he won't be around to gloat, but I think that once he had concocted his plan, he was canny enough to understand that it would work at least to some extent, and perhaps as he felt the floor fall away from his feet, he was gloating all the way down.

Harry Potter et la quête mortelle

Depuis dix ans presque, mes filles m'ont dit que je devais lire les romans Harry Potter. Mais je ne voulais pas lire des livres pour enfants sans quelque chose de plus. Donc, quand je découvrais que la bibliothèque ici à Davis avait les deux premiers tomes en espagnol, je les ai lu dans cette langue. Ils m'ont plu beaucoup, mais la bibliothèque n'avait le tiers tome qu'en français, donc, je l'ai lu en français. Le changement de langues me bouleversait un peu, parce que plusieurs noms des personnages et des objets ont entièrement changé, donc j'ai décidé de relire tous les livres en français, et après, quand des nouveaux tomes paraissaient, je les ai lu en français exclusivement. Je n'ai pas lu ni un volume en anglais. J'ai lu également en français les autres petits livres écrits par JK Rowling : Les animaux fantastiques ; Le quidditch à travers les âges. Et, après toute cette lecture, quand j'ai cherché encore plus, je me suis enregistré dans le site web « Poudlard.org ».

Donc, même que ma langue natale est l'anglais, dans le monde harrypotterien de la magie, je suis plus habitué en français. Par exemple, l'école reste toujours Poudlard pour moi, et ne pas Hogwarts. Ma maison dans Poudlard.org est Poufsouffle et ne pas Hufflepuff.

C'est pour cette raison que j'écris cet article en français, même que c'est abondamment clair que je suis, comme on dit en Amérique, "French challenged", c'est-à-dire, moins capable en français qu'en anglais. Tant pis.

Passons au titre du septième et ultime tome de la série : Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Qu'est-ce que ça signifie ?

En anglais, le mot Hallows et plutôt rare. Il apparaît dans le mot "Hallowe'en", et comme verbe dans des tournures comme "Hallowéd be thy name". Donc, pour la majorité d'anglophones, ce mot ne signifie pas grand-chose. Et pour le francophone typique, muni d'un bon dictionnaire français-anglais, ça signifie encore moins.

Mais dans la tradition anglaise de la magie, un « hallows » est un objet sacré ou magique, doué d'une grande signification : un talisman ou une relique. Fréquemment, un hallows peut être le sujet d'une quête. Par exemple, le saint graal est un hallows ; même le couronne et le sceptre d'un royaume. Je crois que la phrase "deathly hallows" doit signifier quelque chose comme "talismans funestes" ou "relique mortelle".

Et, dans le monde de Harry Potter, après les développements du sixième, je suis presque sûr que les hallows sont les horcruxes dont Voldemort ont déposé des fragments de son âme. Il a choisi déjà des reliques et des symboles des fondateurs de Poudlard pour des horcruxes, et le thème du septième livre sera, sans doute, une grande quête pour tous les horcruxes, chacun imbu du pouvoir de la mort.

One more Iraqi fatality

Today I'm pondering the death of Saddam Hussein at the hands of a government made up of his enemies, supported by a foreign occupying power that is in turn supported in very small part by my tax dollars.

To start out, I don't support capital punishment. It almost never has its intended effect of reducing violence. All it really does for sure is to kill a human being. I freely admit that that position biases me against the execution of Saddam.

In the case of reaction to Saddam's death, who knows what the future holds? I suspect that throughout the Sunni Muslim world, Saddam will be viewed as a martyr, killed by agents of the US. This will do two things: it will deepen resentment against America, and it will also strengthen the branding of the current Iraqi government as an American puppet. Neither of these things will have a positive effect.

And even within the world of Islam, there already has been complaining about the interruption of the trials. Saddam was executed well before all of the facts regarding his rule could be made public. Iraqi Kurds and Shiites bemoan this because they wanted the extent of the harm done them to become public. However, there is a more serious (in my view) reason why the too-hasty execution of Saddam was carried out: the US and various European powers were deeply involved with Saddam. For example, they supported him against Iran, during the period when the most serious atrocities were carried out. By ending the projected sequence of trials when they did, in mid-trial, it is now very unlikely that any embarrassing details (or lack of embarrassing details) about the oil-consuming powers will be made public.

To summarize so far: the execution of Saddam was barbarous (as is all killing of humans) and premature.

But of course, on top of this was the farce of his trial. I have written here, here, and elsewhere about the marsupial character of Saddam's trial(s). Clearly, among his prosecutors there were two camps: those who wanted to create the illusion of a fair trial by honoring at least some of the forms of procedure, versus those who could have cared less about that and simply wanted to throw a sop to the Americans by holding a trial, but moving through it PDQ and on to vengeance. The fact that none of the prosecutors apparently wanted a fair trial, or made any effort to neutrality, was never an issue, it simply went without saying.

And this is another reason why it was important for the Iraqi government and their American supporters to kill Saddam as soon as possible: since he is dead, it is now very unlikely that the gross (and in the US reversible if not criminal) malfeasance on the part of the prosecution will ever be challenged and made public.

To me, an unjust trial is no better than a lynching except that it takes days rather than hours. And that is what we have here: a public, officialized lynching. How can this farcical kangaroo court augur well for a new, improved future Iraq? It's exactly like something that might have happened during or before Saddam's rule. It works exactly against Bushco's apparent desire that people believe he intends to produce a new, improved, lower calorie version of Iraq.

So in summary, what we have is the cruel, premature, injust, and politically boneheaded killing of one more Iraqi as the result of our invasion.

But you, gentle reader, might be wondering: Well, what should we have done with Saddam, given that we had invaded, occupied, deposed, captured, and imprisoned him?

In this random philosophizer's opinion, the most critical thing would have been a thorough, neutral, internationally-monitored investigation of all the facts. This could not be done quickly or efficently in a country wracked with violence, so it would undoubtedly be ongoing. For example, we would still be studying international records, taking depositions from Saddam and other members of his government, from various witnesses; examining of Iraq government records, and so on. This would probably best have been done in a neutral location outside of Iraq. At a certain point, it would be possible to conduct the kind of thorough, neutral, public trial that the situation deserves. The trial would also be outside of Iraq, and would not be carried out under the auspices of the new Iraqi government. There are many reasons for this, including questions of jurisdiction and conflict of interest.

There would be no question of the death penalty, but life imprisonment, payment of fines, exile, and that kind of thing certainly would be on the table. At the end of the process, the world would really understand what happened in Iraq over the decades, who profited, who did good, who did bad, and whether certain things that have been alleged actually happened as claimed. Saddam would probably be convicted of some things, not convicted of others, and he would receive some kind of punishment. If a foreign government would accept him, perhaps this could be simple exile, or perhaps he would have been imprisoned for life.

Instead of modeling cruel, arbitrary, lynch-mob behavior, it could have been a model for what happens when the world unites for justice and transparency. But, it didn't happen.